Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="D'karr" data-source="post: 6020409" data-attributes="member: 336">I would agree very much.  I've played both a fighter and a slayer to high level (paragon) and the differences between the two classes are absolutely there.  However, playing a slayer I never felt that I was any less capable than the fighter.I've also played rangers and rogues to paragon level and the slayer was as fun as playing those classes.  He just operated differently than other strikers.  It was a good thing to add classes like the ones in essentials for those that wanted to have simpler, but still capable classes.There are many people that think that they can make a good assessment of a class simply by reading about it.  I remember the many threads on these boards of how "broken" both the monk, and the mystic theurge were in 3.x.  When the actual play reports started to come in, it was obvious that was not the case for either class.  The monk, if anything, was underpowered, and the mystic theurge was not anywhere as broken as the "experts" claimed.  Splitting caster levels in 3.x was really punishing.I remember reading the 4e warlord for the first time and thinking, this looks like an interesting class but it doesn't really appeal to me.  At Origins that year, I had to fill in for a player for the D&D Open.  Since I was a last minute alternate everyone got to pick their classes first, and I was left with the warlord.  I was not too excited but decided to give it a good shot for the sake of the other players competing.  I had an absolute blast with that character.  It played a lot differently than I had imagined from my initial read through of the class.  At this time if I'm going to play a leader, warlord is my first choice almost everytime.So yeah, I agree that it's mostly a psychological issue.  Reading about a class almost never gives a good assessment of how that class actually performs in play.</blockquote>

Verification